"The Media Fell for a Viral Hoax About Ivermectin Overdoses Straining Rural Hospitals"

|

Robby Soave (Reason) has the details, and seems to have done a good and careful job on the subject. An excerpt:

KFOR, an Oklahoma news channel, reported last week that rural hospitals throughout the state were in danger of becoming overwhelmed by victims of a very specific poisoning: overdoses of ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug promoted by vaccine skeptics as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

The story went viral, and was seized upon by the mainstream media. But its central claim is substantially untrue….

It was a story that appeared to confirm many of the mainstream media's biases about the recklessness of the rubes. But it's extremely misleading. There is, in fact, little reason to believe a purported strain on Oklahoma hospitals is caused by ivermectin overdoses; one hospital served by the doctor quoted in the KFOR article released a statement saying it has not treated any ivermectin overdoses, nor has it been forced to turn away patients….

It's instructive to take a closer look at what went wrong. Rolling Stone's version of the story, for instance, quoted from McElyea's interview with KFOR and did not provide any additional reporting or independently verified information. The image that accompanied the article on Twitter featured people waiting in long lines while wearing winter coats—which does not inspire great confidence that Rolling Stone knows what season it is in Oklahoma at present—and was summarized thusly: "Gunshot victims left waiting as horse dewormer overdoses overwhelm Oklahoma hospitals, doctor says."

Rolling Stone has now appended an update at the top of the story, clarifying that there were 459 case of ivermectin overdoses in the U.S. during the month of August, and though a state-by-state breakdown is not available, it would be surprising if this was straining the Oklahoma medical system. That's because the state is currently experiencing a seven-day-average of 1,528 hospitalizations due to COVID-19. If they're running out of beds and ambulances, it's because of the virus, not ivermectin. This was something Rolling Stone could have figured out on its own had the magazine bothered to contact any hospitals in Oklahoma, but alas….

NEXT: From Rosh Hashanah 5781 to Rosh Hashanah 5782

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The media is working overtime to destroy any semblance of credibility it once had.

    1. The Free Press is now just advertising for the Democrat Party. It lies by omission 95% of the time.

      There are 2 people with lower morals than the scumbag lawyer. One is the serial rapist and killer of children. The other is the journalist.

      1. The last is the guy who can’t spell “David”.

        1. Criticizing typos on the internet is considered bad manners, you nitpicking, lawyer scumbag.

          1. Is it nitpicking to note that you’re still calling me a lawyer despite having been told around a dozen times that I am not a lawyer, you sore on on the penis of life?

    2. well some are simply feeding back the same line used when CBS was busted over the Bush National Guard screw up. Fake but accurate. Dan Rather even implied the story could be true by only disclaiming the use of the documents in question.

      They even tried to use a 2015 movie to discredit the fact they were caught using faked documents. It was such a ham fisted attempt that even CBS would not allow themselves to be associated with it.

    3. Yes, the meetings occur immediately after the weekly meeting of the secret Jewish cabal.

      1. “Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians…”
        source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

        1. Weird how you are citing that as if it’s a fact. Regardless, my post admitted as much and invited you to come along!

          1. No, you used snark to deflect away from the link Ed posted. So I wouldn’t be in such a hurry to pat myself on the back…

            1. As I pointed out to you in another thread. Your own stupid belief in something stupid is your problem and not the result of my posting.

            2. “No, you used snark to deflect away from the link Ed posted.”

              Which was an entirely appropriate response. Well done!

      2. secret Jewish cabal blah blah blah

        Res ipsa isn’t just for breakfast anymore. Here’s where we stand:

        1. Ivermectin has been manufactured for human use for decades, and has been approved in the US for human use since 1996.
        2. It’s been recognized as a potential treatment for COVID since the first half of 2020.
        2. Dozens of studies have been run on it in that timeframe.
        3. It has been and is being used as a frontline COVID treatment in many countries.
        4. Only in the past couple of weeks were all of the above objective facts shit-canned and the drug suddenly labeled as “horse paste” by the media (and the very FDA that approved it for human use 25 years ago, for crying out loud!)
        5. It’s now difficult to find a (US) media story that does NOT lead with “horse paste” or some derivative.

        Given all that, your realistic choices are pretty much down to (1) mass amnesia of journalists, followed by them all magically reading a “horse paste” article and not checking on whether reality might extend beyond it; (2) journalists saying “horse paste — tee hee!” and aping each other like small children on the playground; or (3) coordination amongst journalists to create a narrative.

        1. “1. Ivermectin has been manufactured for human use for decades, and has been approved in the US for human use since 1996.”

          Which tells you squat about the products marketed for veterinary usage.

          “3. It has been and is being used as a frontline COVID treatment in many countries.”

          I didn’t know horses could even get COVID. I thought it was just people and bats.

          “Given all that, your realistic choices are pretty much down to (1) mass amnesia of journalists”

          Another possibility that you don’t seem to be considering, is that your rejection of reality isn’t working.

        2. Ivermectin is used as a frontline covid treatment in countries *where they do not have vaccines* and *because* *they do not have vaccines*. It’s not an alternative to being vaccinated and no country that has access to vaccines recommends it as treatment, no less, in lieu of being vaccinated. Stories are leading with horse paste because people are buying horse paste because they are frothingly moronic and desperate to virtue signal their disagreeableness.

          1. If only the vaccines were 100% effective and the virus were willing to not jump to people who cannot get the vax jab rather than will not get it.
            Then, they’d just be putting themselves and their pals at risk, instead of other people. Then it’d be easy to support choosing not to get the jab.

    4. “The media is working overtime to destroy any semblance of credibility it once had.”

      “media” is a plural

    1. I read this post, and thought, “I’m going to write a comment that says “‘But see’ the ASC article . . . .” and then was like, “someone else has probably done that already, but I’ll check.”

      Yup.

    2. Your article’s sum-up:

      I think the most likely scenario is that ivermectin is causing a few hospitalizations, but pretty few.

      “But see” what, exactly?

    3. See what? Media still got the story wrong. Whether the doctor lied or the initial local reporter lied…none of them fact checked. There is no “both sides” here.

      1. So, the takeaway is that it’s OK to overdose on horse dewormers, the hospital will still be happy to take you in and separate your from your money.

        1. Tom Massie: “If you just got finessed into calling the medicine that won the 2015 Nobel prize ‘Horse-dewormer,’ you might need to sit the next few plays out.”

          1. You don’t seem to be representing the medical community’s view on ivermectin any more reasonably

            1. What view is that? And why is that the view? I want real facts.

              1. Ivermectin is not effective as a treatment for Covid nor is it effective as a preventative measure for Covid and when available, there is no reason why these “alternatives” should be over vaccines and any questions about the effectiveness of ivermectin is with the context of its use in countries that do not have vaccines and even then there is little to support its effectiveness. You can get this from a number of sources. Here’s an hour-long interview with one of the doctors who publicly came out for Ivermectin and where he explains why his points were misrepresented by the anti-vaxx and anti-covid communities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XClxXWWuyG4

                You can get this info from the CDC, FDA, World Health Org, let alone other Nations’ medical apparatuses. My guess is you already didn’t find any of those convincing, so I sent you a woo-woo youtube video about it.

                1. Yet where is the in-depth report on bona fide CDC work on COVID treatments?
                  Absent that there will be ever more crazy ideas about medications for other purposes that are already out there. Administration leadership on COVID-19 is abysmal. It was so last year and continues to be that way.

                  1. “Yet where is the in-depth report on bona fide CDC work on COVID treatments?”

                    It’s filed with the bona fide CDC work on whether or not cannabis is an effective treatment for COVID.

                    1. In other words, James, there is none. As I said the Administration’s leadership on COVID is pitiful

                    2. Don, your problem is that the FDA has not prioritized studies on covid treatments that are already known to be *vastly* ineffective compared to vaccination? Hmmm

                    3. “In other words, James, there is none.”

                      Oh, good. I was afraid that might go over your head.

              2. Are you going to reply or are you going to keep complaining about snark?

                1. Did ML (or ICallahan) say anything to the contrary?

                  1. “Tom Massie: “If you just got finessed into calling the medicine that won the 2015 Nobel prize ‘Horse-dewormer,’ you might need to sit the next few plays out.””

                    It winning the Nobel Prize in 2015 is of no-consequence to its effectiveness regarding Covid.

                    1. It’s of consequence to hack journalists falsely deriding it as “horse dewormer.” Don’t be dumb.

                    2. “It’s of consequence to hack journalists falsely deriding it as “horse dewormer.” Don’t be dumb.”

                      The hack jourrnalists weren’t deriding the horse dewormer, falsely or otherwise. The were deriding the people who elected to use a veterinary medicine rather than get a vaccination. See how those are different things? Now, it may well be that derision of Oklahomans in general fueled the adoption of the story, but note that the origination is still in OKC. Maybe the Supreme Court was right, and we should be giving the whole state back to the Indians.

          2. ” ‘If you just got finessed into calling the medicine that won the 2015 Nobel prize ‘Horse-dewormer,’ you might need to sit the next few plays out.’

            If calling horse-dewormer “horse-dewormer” bothered you, you might need to pull your head out of your lower intestine.

        2. I guess the take away is that if you overdose on horse dewormers, you don’t know how to use a graduated syringe. The difference between a toxic and therapeutic dose is actually bigger for ivermectin than aspirin.

          By the way, you should tell those chaps on Warfarin that they’re taking rat poison!

          1. “By the way, you should tell those chaps on Warfarin that they’re taking rat poison!”

            The chaps taking rat poison are taking rat poison because it’s available as a generic and covered by insurance, whereas Eliquis is still covered by patent and much more expensive.

        3. Let me put it plainly for you: NO ONE OD’d on horse dewormers. All you’re doing is lying now.

          1. ” NO ONE OD’d on horse dewormers. All you’re doing is lying now.”

            Let me put it plainly for you. If I’d said anyone OD’d on horse dewormers, that probably would have been a lie. But I didn’t say that. So go use a rusty hatchet as a suppository.

    4. “But see”

      Did you mean “See also” ?

      1. That reminds me very much of https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/get-to-the-point, and not in a good way. I’m not sure what point that writer was trying to make. Maybe that Scott Alexander used a double standard to engage in “both sides”-ism in his latest ACX post, and Resident Contrarian claims to read his mind about why?

        It was pretty obvious that there was some dodgy equivalence in Alexander’s second “act”, but that really shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s part of a long-standing and fairly open bias.

  2. Amazing how when you question the preferred government/media/liberal narrative gets you labeled a spreader of “misinformation”, but when the media publishes crap like this it’s “no harm, no foul”

    1. Disaffected, downscale, conspiracy-addled, anti-social right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      1. The Rev. doesn’t dispute that his side got caught spreading misinformation, but gloats that his side’s misinformation is going to win in the end, while his opponents will be squashed for questioning of the received wisdom. The Stalinism is strong with this one.

        1. Let’s compare the competing misinformations: One side says that Ivermectin is more dangerous than you though it was, and one side says that coronavirus is no big deal, go ahead and send your kid to school with no mask and no vaccine. Perfectly equivalent.

          1. “Let’s compare the competing misinformations:”

            Better yet, let’s try to get at the truth.

            1. “Better yet, let’s try to get at the truth.”

              The truth is that climate change is costing us billions of dollars. The truth is that people who intentionally chose not to get COVID vaccinations are fueling the current the current upsurge in cases, both directly (by becoming infected) and indirectly (by providing hosts that allow the virus to mutate into variant strains that can infect people vaccinated against the original strain).

              Is that enough truth for you? Or do you need a second helping?

          2. James Pollock
            September.7.2021 at 10:59 am
            Flag Comment Mute User
            Let’s compare the competing misinformations: One side says that Ivermectin is more dangerous than you though it was, and one side says that coronavirus is no big deal, go ahead and send your kid to school with no mask and no vaccine. Perfectly equivalent.

            Allowing children’s immune system to fully develop at an age when the virus causes very little damage and at an age which provides the best opportunity for long term immunity is the most efficient long term strategy. As opposed to intentionally retarding the development of the child’s immune system. That approach is basically advocating that the human race evolve so that humans can only survive in a sterile environment.

            1. Tom, are you coming out against childhood vaccinations in general, or just this particular one for no discernible reason?

              1. No – I am in favor of childhood vaccines.

                I am opposed to retarding/delaying/preventing the timely development of the human immune system which the approach the pro-maskers are unwittingly advocating.

                1. If children are given vaccines, in what way is their immune system hampered? and, as I asked before, how is this different with covid as opposed to the other vaccines to which you have no apparent problem with?

                  1. The difference at this point is that actually getting covid provides much higher level of long term immunity based on information currently available. Kids are also showing very little negative impact from the virus. The best long term strategy is a population with high levels of immunity. Suppression of the viral spread is a viable realistic alternative and the existing vaccine is proving only marginally effective.

                    1. Oops – typo – Suppression of the viral spread is NOT a viable realistic alternative and the existing vaccine is proving only marginally effective.

                    2. “The difference at this point is that actually getting covid provides much higher level of long term immunity based on information currently available.” I’m under the impression there is no evidence to back up this often repeated claim.

                      “Suppression of the viral spread is a viable realistic alternative and the existing vaccine is proving only marginally effective.”

                      Right, what’s at question here is your alternative suggestion that nothing should be done at all.

                    3. IP ‘ comment – “Right, what’s at question here is your alternative suggestion that nothing should be done at all.”

                      Possibly yes – Suppression efforts have proven futile, with the exception with regions of the world with complete or near complete lockdowns. The virus is too deeply embedded into the general population to have suppression to be a viable alternative.

                      Sweden may be a better example than previously thought. It’s per capita current death rate and cumulative death rate is much lower than all but 5-6 countries in the western world, excluding the countries with hard lockdowns. Only Norway, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Canada have been better numbers. New zealand and Australia and a number of east asian countries with hard lockdowns have been able to succeed with temporary suppression efforts.

                    4. Tom, hopefully this appears in thread correctly. Have any medical experts argued that suppression is not viable? And you haven’t said what it’d be viable for? Completely eradicating the virus? I don’t think anyone thought that was possible.

                      I’m in NYC and we are well vaccinated and are doing fine. It’s not going to stop everyone from getting Covid but we are no longer experience cascading hospital failures nor do we have mortuary trucks in our streets because we cannot handle the load. Apparently things aren’t so good where people aren’t well vaccinated because they are eschewing what doctors have recognized results in a 99% reductions in hospitalizations and fatalities from the virus.

                      And why are you talking about lockdowns? Who is discussing lockdowns at this point? People are saying we need to get the unvaccinated vaccinated such that they continue to not fill up the hospitals with what is an otherwise preventable situation for 99% of the current victims.

                    5. “The difference at this point is that actually getting covid provides much higher level of long term immunity based on information currently available.”

                      True. Dead people are immune to disease.

                    6. ” The virus is too deeply embedded into the general population to have suppression to be a viable alternative.”

                      If so, we know whom to thank for this development.

                    7. IPL,
                      ” I’m under the impression there is no evidence to back up this often repeated claim. ”
                      You are wrong again. Do a careful search of the medical literature (not news articles).
                      You should be trained how to do that

                    8. James Pollock
                      September.8.2021 at 7:52 am
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      ” The virus is too deeply embedded into the general population to have suppression to be a viable alternative.”
                      “If so, we know whom to thank for this development.”

                      We can neither blame or praise any of the politicians for the success or failure. We can only blame mother nature – or possibly the wuhan lab/fauci or who ever funded gain of function research.

                    9. Don, post the medical literature or shut the hell up.

                    10. “We can neither blame or praise any of the politicians for the success or failure. We can only blame mother nature”

                      She’s a convenient scapegoat. Let’s blame her for hurricane Ida, too, and none of that anthropogenic climate-change crap, either.

                  2. IPL,
                    Now you are speaking with ignorance about about immune system development and viral evolution.
                    Didn’t they teach that in Law School?

                    1. I’m not speaking ignorantly about that at all and all you are doing is making it clear that you did not go to Medical School nor Law School

                    2. Sorry, you are.
                      I have read several reports by virologists an immunologists, They do not all agree. (Incidentally you don’t need to go to med school to study those subjects). I am not trained in those subjects and therefore have no informed opinion about the actual mechanisms. But as a trained scientist I am fully able to say that your simplistic view is not among the the set of expert opinions.
                      No go back to IP law and stop being so arrogant

                    3. Don, it’s come to put up or shut up. No one cares what you have claimed to read. Show us medical literature that is respected and followed in the medical community that substantiates your argument.

                    4. “you are speaking with ignorance about about immune system development and viral evolution.
                      Didn’t they teach that in Law School?”

                      Now that you mention it, I don’t recall that particular topic coming up. Should it have been in Contracts? Or Property? I know, for sure it should have been covered in Torts…

            2. ” when the virus causes very little damage”

              This virus has developed a habit of killing the host. How much more damage you looking for?

          3. The second person has the much better argument. The flu and RSV are both worse for kids than COVID-19, and they don’t seem to be very good at spreading it, even within their own household. Also, the safety margin for ivermectin is enormous compared to, say, aspirin or acetaminophen.

            1. Comparing, say aspirin or acetaminophen would be relevant if, say, aspirin or acetaminophen were as capable of fighting the virus as Ivermectin is, which, as it turns out, they are.

              1. You are as wrong as usual. Nobody has shown in vitro effectiveness of those painkillers, but they have shown it for ivermectin. Comparing the safety margin to “typical” OTC drugs is also relevant to complaints about the risk of overdose.

                1. You are as wrong as usual.”

                  By which you mean completely correct, of course.

        2. ” The Rev. doesn’t dispute that his side got caught spreading misinformation ”

          This was an inbred “reporter” at an Oklahoma television station making the type of error one might expect of a young-twenties, nepotism-placed, backwater, red state “journalist.” Probably someone who could not have become an editor at my college newspaper.

          My side has won the American culture war, Seamus. I encourage anyone at this blog — commenter or Conspirator — who disagrees with that point to state a case.

          1. “This was an inbred ‘reporter’ at an Oklahoma television station making the type of error one might expect of a young-twenties, nepotism-placed, backwater, red state ‘journalist.'”

            That’s interesting, I read about it in Rolling Stone.

            1. Yeah, I saw it on Maddow’s feed. She kind of looks inbred, and I don’t know if she would have make it as a reporter at Kirkland’s college newspaper.

            2. It is interesting, how Rolling Stone chose to run with this story out of all the stories from which they could have chosen.

              Just as they chose to run the “Jackie – U VA Rape Story” without doing any attempt at independent verification of any of the allegations in the story.

        3. “The Rev. doesn’t dispute that his side got caught spreading misinformation”

          I forgot to get a scorecard on my way into the stadium. How do the sides line up, exactly? Who’s on which side?

  3. The story can’t possibly be a hoax. Many people, including Rachael Maddow, have tweeted about it, and Twitter Safety hasn’t flagged their tweets as misinformation.

    1. By legal precedent Rachel Maddow is not a reliable news source. For a accurate, truthful reporting on what’s going on we’d need to look to Alex Jones at least according to legal opinions on the quality of their information.

  4. Honestly at this point I assume these far left narratives are just loyalty tests. You pass if you credulously accept them, and then later claim you knew they weren’t true once the narrative shifts again.

    (the same is true of Bush neocons who now say we should have been out of Afghanistan years ago, but somehow you cannot find any evidence of them saying it)

    1. Can you find people who complained that hassling Iraq while Afghanistan was unfinished business was likely to cost us the effort sunk into Afghanistan?

      1. Can you find people who can stay on topic?

        1. Not you, apparently.

  5. Reminder that the story about South Dakota covid patients screaming “This isn’t real!” with their dying breath was also too good to check.

    1. How many virus-flouting, lethally reckless, belligerently ignorant clingers must die, or be placed on ventilators, before at least a few right-wingers encounter a flicker of enlightenment?

      (I endorse accountability, but the problem is that the unvaccinated rubes are taking hospital beds that others need.)

      1. Maybe there would be fewer unvaccinated rubes if there less bullshit floating around.

        If truly want to use reason, every time, Arthur, you should point out your side’s bullshit instead of whatabouting it.

        1. Okay, I’ll tell the media to get their facts straight.

          1. More snark, less steak. Again.

            1. People referring to the media as a single entity are stupid and their arguments are stupid and you are stupid if you fall for them as well.

              1. Just stick to the fact. Oh, you are? Never mind.

        2. “Maybe there would be fewer unvaccinated rubes if there less bullshit floating around.”

          Swell, Tell the unvaccinated rubes to stop floating so much bullshit.

  6. Repeal the Free Press Clause, and put these servants of the Chinese Commie Party in prison.

  7. It’s instructive to take a closer look at what went wrong.
    The media has been doing this for over a decade.
    Intentionally reporting to set or spread the narrative. It they can spread unsupported stories from other sources, all the better. Then the fake story gives them the excuse that all they did was report what other “news” outlets reported, they just reported what others reported
    Nothing went wrong. This is exactly what the propaganda media wants.

    1. the problem with misinformation (whether it’s coming from left-wing sources or right-wing) is misplaced trust. “I believe they’re reporting truthfully because I trusted them to report truthfully” It’s VERY EASY to be skeptical of people who normally say things you don’t want to believe, and much harder to be skeptical of people who normally tell you just what you want to hear.

  8. The media didn’t fall for the hoax, and neither did any of the liberal tweeting about it. They picked it and ran with it full speed. Confirmation bias- the story confirmed what they knew in their hearts to be true, no matter how false it was. Therefore, it meets their definition of “true”.

    Remember- true Communism has never been tried, all those failures are false Communism. Same logic.

    1. Confirmation bias- the story confirmed what they knew in their hearts to be true,

      No. They knew it to be false.
      The goal is always to advance the narrative. “They bad, we good”The Rolling Stone Story was a known fabrication by the authors. Think “Duke La Crosse Players, as privileged rapists.
      The story checks all the boxes for advancing the agenda.
      A 10 year old with a spark of curiosity would make one phone call to the main switchboard of any hospital and ask how many ivermectrin overdoses they have had. But not one person would make one call.
      Because their goal is to magnify the lie. Never to create news.

      1. “‘Confirmation bias- the story confirmed what they knew in their hearts to be true,’

        No. They knew it to be false.”

        You’re not exactly a source I would have expected to hear a “the media don’t make mistakes” storyline from.

  9. “But it’s extremely misleading.”

    Like hell it’s misleading. It was a bald faced lie. There’s no perspective from which it kinda, sorta looked true if you squinted, it was just a total fabrication from top to bottom.

    I hate it when the media lie, and it gets soft peddled like this.

    I used to assume that, when the media seized on some stupid left-wing talking point, and in the space of hours it was being pushed everywhere, that it was a kind of flocking behavior, like starlings.

    Then the Journolist scandal broke.

    Today my default assumption when something like this happens is that somebody sent out a memo, and everybody fell in line.

    1. There was, in fact, no “Journalist scandal.”

      1. I suppose that IS the Cabalist line.

        1. Also the line of people who have some familiarity with a dictionary.

          1. Look, you don’t get to make something not a “scandal” just because you personally didn’t find it objectionable. This is like the claim that the Obama administration didn’t have any “scandals” because left-wing media refused to use the word.

            They got caught coordinating talking points that got used in supposedly independent news reports. That’s a scandal. They didn’t shut down Journolist because everything was above board and beyond reproach. They shut it down, and restarted it with more security, because what they do on it doesn’t bear observation.

            And it perfectly explains why you’ll typically see the same left-wing talking point appear at the same time all across the media ecosystem. It looks like it’s coordinated because it IS coordinated.

            1. “Look, you don’t get to make something not a “scandal” just because you personally didn’t find it objectionable. ”

              Things that are not objectionable are not scandals.

            2. Brett, just come to the meetings. You can be my guest. We meet after the secret Jewish cabal every Thursday night.

              1. You may want to try a different tack, because all I’m seeing is snark after snark, and not a single attempt to discuss the issue at hand.

                Or is that your aim here? Distract from the truth by acting like an ass?

                1. This is a comment section in a blog, I think you are mistaken about where you are. Aside from the fact that you lack a sense of humor. Me posting anything has nothing to do with what is true in the world. Certainly you are aware of that. Further to this, to what extent my posts distract you from being able to obtain the truth seems to be more of an issue of your own critical thinking skills than any effort of my own.

                2. “You may want to try a different tack, because all I’m seeing is snark after snark, and not a single attempt to discuss the issue at hand.”

                  What’s to discuss? There was a fuckup. Nobody is advocating for more fuckups, we already have found agreement on that point.

            3. Look, you don’t get to make something not a “scandal” just because you personally didn’t find it objectionable. This is like the claim that the Obama administration didn’t have any “scandals” because left-wing media refused to use the word.

              No, it’s like the claim that saying scandal doesn’t make it one. It’s like when a few RW Trumpkin loons tried to make the alleged Hunter Biden laptop a “scandal” for Joe Biden.

              scan·dal
              an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.

              Journolist was a mailing list where a bunch of liberal journalists socialized in private. Sometimes they said snarky or nasty things about conservatives. That is obviously not legally wrong, and there’s nothing morally wrong about it, either.

              1. You don’t see anything ethically problematic with supposedly independent journalists working for supposedly non-partisan newspapers coordinating attack lines on political opponents?

                1. I would see something ethically problematic with that. If that’s what happened. But it didn’t. If you look at the reporting, virtually all of the quotes that leaked that could be read as talking about how to shape coverage came from opinion journalists, not reporters.

                  1. So first, that’s wrong. Spencer Ackerman was a news reporter, not opinion piece author.
                    But just so we’re clear , there’s no ethical problem with clandestine coordination of opinion pages, according to you? OpEd writers across the board could discuss strategies for smearing political opponents, and that’s A-Ok?

                    1. Are you just making sure that what you guys have been doing is in the clear, or are you planning something new?

                      The notion that “dittoheads” were getting their “outrage of the day” talking points from AM radio is not exactly new… and the patent ran out.

                    2. But just so we’re clear , there’s no ethical problem with clandestine coordination of opinion pages, according to you? OpEd writers across the board could discuss strategies for smearing political opponents, and that’s A-Ok?

                      Charles Babbage, considered by some to be the father of computing, is credited as saying: “On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

                      Of course there’s nothing unethical about coordinating opinion pages. (If by “smearing” you mean lying, then of course that’s unethical, but the ethical problems do not arise from the coordination, but instead from the defamation.) What would be the problem?

                      “Check out this opinion piece in the Washington Post describing my views on a political issue.”

                      “But, but… so-and-so at the Los Angeles Times published an opinion piece expressing those same views.”

                      “And?”

          2. Ah, the “it’s not a scandal” because none of the people caught doing it have a sense of shame” defense?

            Exactly which of the key details of the Journalist scandal are not true?

            Which of the key details do you claim are true, but aren’t a problem?

            1. “Which of the key details do you claim are true, but aren’t a problem?”

              People having opinions, and sharing them with other people who have similar opinions… that’s not a problem. It’s the American Way.

      2. Of course there was such a scandal.

        Journalists are “supposed” to be independent, each providing their own research, views, opinions, criticism, and so on.

        But in 2008, instead there was an organization to “share views” and “coordinate” responses, especially in regards to the 2008 election. Let’s illustrate with one line.

        ““Whether we are defending Wright or repudiating him, we are talking about what liberalism’s enemies want us to be talking about,” David Roberts of Grist magazine said. “The problem is that none of us are thinking about how to take control of the discussion.””

        The problem there is the coordination and collusion. How to “take control” of the conversation. And in doing so, across a broad media base, it eliminates much of the independence and criticism that exists.

        https://nypost.com/2010/07/25/the-fix-was-in/

        1. I feel like — and this would explain why things like OANN and NewsMax and such are such cesspools — conservatives do not understand the difference between opinion journalism and news reporting. Grist Magazine is an advocacy publication. It does not purport to be objective.

          1. “facts don’t matter. We make our own reality” — noted liberal Dick Cheney

          2. when “opinion journalism” colludes and collaborates with other “news”….it’s a problem.

            1. “when ‘opinion journalism’ colludes and collaborates with other ‘news’….it’s a problem.”

              … but only when THEY do it. When WE do it, it’s perfectly fine. On OUR news channels, the opinion programming is the highest-rated, and makes the most profit.

        2. “Journalists are “supposed” to be independent, each providing their own research, views, opinions, criticism, and so on.”

          They are, however, (ideally) supposed to correspond with reality, so if they are all aligning with the same thing, you’d expect them to come out with similar views, opinions, criticism, and so on.

      3. Just as this is not a “hoax,” but a mistake, or even a series of mistakes.

        Of course Brett and others, apparently unfortunately including Eugene, are unwilling to grant that anyone they dislike could ever be operating out of any but the worst motives.

        1. That’s how projection works.
          You understand how your mind works, and you just assume that everybody else’s works the same way.

    2. I found the following article helpful. It describes how the 9-11 truther movement…and the media’s response to it…led to some of the twisting of facts and failure in media that we see today.

      Here’s an outtake.

      “Eventually, I developed a few thoughts about why the liberal media was lukewarm toward our work [articles debunking 9-11 trutherism]. First, it’s important to remember that 9/11 conspiracy theories were mostly embraced on the far left at that point. George W. Bush was in the White House, and antiwar sentiment was strong. Few liberal leaders and media figures actively promoted the theories, but few also saw them as a problem worth criticizing. (David Corn, then a columnist at The Nation, was a notable—and noble—exception.) The unspoken assumption seemed to be that there wasn’t much harm in a few hotheads calling Bush a terrorist puppet master. In fact, if it convinced a few more people to hate Republicans, it might even be a good thing.”

      https://www.city-journal.org/9-11-truther-movement-a-harbinger-of-todays-paranoid-politics

    3. Today my default assumption when something like this happens is that somebody sent out a memo, and everybody fell in line.

      Except for the part about a memo going out.
      Nobody needs a memo, when a blind person can see the culture that cultivates this kind of behavior.
      Its like the Obama IRS denying preferred tax status to conservative groups. Nobody had to tell anybody what to do. The culture cultivates the attitude….and rewards it. Think Kamala, rewarded for her advancing the narrative, not her accomplishments.

      1. That wouldn’t explain why they use such similar language, though.

        1. The explanation is this: They do it solely to irritate you, Brett. That’s the only reason they all use English.

    4. “Like hell it’s misleading. It was a bald faced lie. There’s no perspective from which it kinda, sorta looked true if you squinted, it was just a total fabrication from top to bottom.”

      What a surprise. It turns out that Brett just assumes bad faith from someone with whom he disagrees. What were the odds of that happening (again)?

      1. You’d know better than anyone, since you haven’t even tried to refute any of his points. You’re more guilty of that than Brett is.

        1. “you haven’t even tried to refute any of his points.”

          This would first require finding that he had points that needed refuting. You are correct that this has not occurred.

  10. Wait, we should be sceptical about most things and more skeptical about things that we want to believe? Imagine my surprise. It’s almost like confirmation bias is real.

    PS- for those who think that it is only the “other side” that believes overheated bullshit, you are the problem. Whichever “side” you’re on, you are the problem.

    1. I look at it like this: left wing or right wing…both wings are attached to the same corrupt bird. And the bird is a vulture.

    2. “Whichever “side” you’re on, you are the problem.”

      The real problem is people who assume everybody is on exactly one out of exactly two sides of every possible issue.

      1. So true. That’s why I said “whichever side”. There are always more “sides” than just the two that the fringes want to pretend. But tell them that there are such things as center-right, center-left, libertarian, etc. and you’ll be told that they don’t exist. Radical left says those people are all Nazis. Radical right says that those people are all Marxists. Even here, where I was hoping for a more nuanced discussion, posting things in support of personal liberty results in being called a leftist. Posting in opposition of censorship results in being called a leftist. Unless it gets a suggestion that throats should be slit, which I am hoping is just chest-thumping hyperbole.

        1. The other problem is people who think everything is about them.

  11. Well, at least they’re retracting the story, rather than doubling down.

    1. Toad, as you seem to understand, story-modifications, walk-backs, corrections, and retractions are generally markers of journalistic quality. Attacks on journalistic organizations for furnishing improved accuracy are markers of ignorance, and sometimes of tendencies worse than ignorance.

      1. Oh stfu. They didn’t do basic fact checking. Dont bootlick for the media again in these comments, understood?

        1. I’ll bite: What do you think you can possibly do about it if someone doesn’t follow your order?

          So scary!

          1. Humiliate them by pointing out they are so god damn stupid they are trying to dress up failing at basic fact checking as journalistic integrity.

            Any other questions?

            1. Nope. I just wanted to make sure your threats were as vapid as your attempts at legitimate commentary.

              1. Good for a second I thought you would be stupid enough to argue he didnt just try to argue failing to do basic journalism is somehow a sign of integrity.

                Have a nice day!

                1. “I thought you would be stupid enough to argue he didnt just try to argue failing to do basic journalism is somehow a sign of integrity.”

                  Integrity comes when you admit that you made a mistake after you made a mistake. I’m sorry this has to be explained for you, but there it is.

              2. Okay look I’m just gonna add I apologize. My original comment I was aiming for snark and I realize it did seem like I was threatening the dude. I apologize for no other snark tho.

                1. Could you try aiming for something better than snark?

                  1. If you can’t do snark, don’t try to do snark. This is the second rule of snark club.

        2. “They didn’t do basic fact checking.”

          More correctly, they did do basic fact-checking, but not until after publishing their initial stories. Then, after the basic fact-checking, they put out corrections and retractions.

          getting it right (eventually) is minimum standard, Ideal is getting it right the first time.

          1. If they hadn’t done fact checking, they shouldn’t have published it the first time.

            Minor corrections are one thing. Getting it entirely wrong is a complete failure, and should never happen if they do the minimum due diligence.

            1. “If they hadn’t done fact checking, they shouldn’t have published it the first time.”

              To whom are you explaining this?

          2. There’s a bit of a difference between, “Hey, maybe we should have checked that.” and “The hospital says we’re full of it, maybe we should have checked that.”

            I’d cut them more slack if the basic fact checking had come before it was pointed out to them the story was wrong.

            1. I do not believe you would have cut them any slack under any circumstances.

          3. More correctly, they did do basic fact-checking, but not until after publishing their initial stories.

            Gee, shall we give them a cookie for starting a three-state brushfire and then gently urinating on one edge of it a day later pretending they’re putting it out? Give me a break.

            Then, after the basic fact-checking, they put out corrections and retractions.

            No, no they did not. The article is right here. Please do share with us any supposed “correction” or “retraction” — they certainly don’t frame anything in their carefully-worded “update” that way.

            In fact, they very defensively rewrote the headline of the article (“One Hospital Denies Oklahoma Doctor’s Story…”) to distract from the small-print admission that “Rolling Stone has been unable to independently verify any such cases” and that the doctor that started this whole debacle has gone strangely incommunicado.

            This is not anything resembling a search for the truth or an honest admission that they ran with a bunch of totally unverified, sniff-test-flunking, tabloid-grade hooey that they desperately wanted to be true. This “update” is nothing but bare-minimum, gritted-teeth CYA in the hope the mess will blow over soon.

            1. Gee, now that I’ve seen your criticism, I which I’d said that what they did was bare-minimum instead of applauding it so wildly as a job well-done.

              1. What a strange set of keystrokes to waste saying nothing, rather than simply identifying the alleged “corrections and retractions” you claimed they put out.

                1. Gee, now that I see your futher criticism, I see that you are a fucktard. Go away.

      2. Stephen Lathrop, you know what’s a “marker of journalistic quality”?
        Contacting the organization / person the story is about, to get their comment on the truth of the story.

        You know what’s another “marker of journalistic quality”?
        Doing basic fact checking before you run a story

        If they had contacted the hospital the guy claimed to work for, they would have been told the story was garbage. And a “quality journalistic organization” would have then not run the story.

        If they had functioning brains, they’d have asked themselves “how many cases do you need per hour to completely overwhelm the ERs, so that gunshot victims can’t be seen?”

        How about 10 per hour per ER room?
        So, that’s 240 per day, or 7000 per month, per hospital with an ER.

        So, now let’s check with the Poison control hotline. We’ll be really generous to our story, and guess that 1 in 10 of those people had someone call the poison control hotline.

        So, that should be 700 calls last month, in OK.

        What’s that? There were 459 for the entire country?
        Story killed.

        Now, let’s pretend you’re an editor at a “quality journalistic organization”. Someone gives you an article about ERs being overwhelmed in OK in August, and the accompanying picture shows a bunch of people in winter clothes standing in line.

        Do you maybe ask why they don’t have a summer picture?

        This “story” is a complete, utter, obvious pile of garbage. no one with a shred of “journalistic quality” got anywhere near it.

        But is you want to dive into that pile of sewage, you go

      3. “Toad, as you seem to understand, story-modifications, walk-backs, corrections, and retractions are generally markers of journalistic quality.

        Shorter Lathrop: You can tell they’re a good paper because they run so many corrections.

        IIRC Lathrop claims to have been a professional journalist.

        1. Somehow, that seems believable…

        2. TwelveInch, at the small-time paper I published I demanded this correction policy from all our reporters: If you screw up, the correction goes in exactly the same place in the paper as your mistake, just as large, with your name on it. We followed that policy, but for some reason had very few demands for corrections.

      4. I see you subscribe to the Jayson Blair school of journalistic integrity.

      5. Notice how the story modifications, walk-backs, corrections and retractions are ALL in the same direction?

        1. “Notice how the story modifications, walk-backs, corrections and retractions are ALL in the same direction?”

          Would you expect otherwise? What were you expecting, something like:
          “we were wrong”
          “no we weren’t!”
          “Yes you were, and the person who was wrong has been sacked”
          “The person who sacked the one who wasn’t wrong at all has now been sacked”
          “please stay tuned for further developments…”

    2. No that isnt how this works. They know the game. Put out a false story. Then put out a correction that isnt seen by as nearly many people. Then wait for idiots to come and praise them for doing what they should have done in the first place. Usually these idiots will toss in a line like “fox news never corrects their stories”. I assume this is done so we the audience know with utter certainty we are dealing with a moron.

      1. You do seem to be involved in a deal with a moron. Not at the end of the deal you imagine, however.

        1. If he’s a moron, I’d say that makes you dumber than a rock, but then, that would be insulting to rocks.

          1. Coming from you, that’s strong praise indeed!

  12. Which has a lower batting average in this context . . . Rolling Stone, or The Volokh Conspiracy’s Today In Supreme Court History?

    A special Noble Prize may be awarded to the first person to publish the correct answer to that one.

    (The important story is that people who need hospital beds are coming up short in some areas because substandard people — unvaccinated COVID patients — are misappropriating the resources.)

    1. The important story is a lot of idiots got duped into believing this story. Should have listened to your betters when we told you it was suspect. Did you have anything else to add kiddo or are you finished? Yeah I think you’re finished.

      1. You seem to be confusing the point that the American culture war is settled with the fact that it is not finished.

        Guys like me are not finished shoving progress down the whimpering, powerless throats of right-wingers like you . . . not nearly finished.

        You get to keep whining about it as much as you like, of course . . . but you will continue to comply, as always, with the preferences of your betters.

        1. Your post just screams “I’m a beta”.

          1. So long as you comply with my preferences (those of the culture war’s winners), clinger, you can yap as much as you like.

            But you will continue to toe that line, with the other half-educated bigots. Your betters call the shots, all you can do is whimper about it.

            Open wider, loser. There is plenty more progress that will be shoved down your powerless, whining throat. You can pray on it, you can complain . . . But you will comply. As usual.

      2. The important part of the story is that only one person in California actually cares what is happening in hospitals in Oklahoma.

        1. The important part of the story is that James is here to support the bullshit as always.

          1. “The important part of the story is that James is here to support the bullshit as always.”

            I am NOT supporting you.

    2. Pretty sure Rolling Stone has a lower batting average.

      Or are you asserting that Blackman is mistaken when he claims that on this day in 1958, “The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the Little Rock School Board’s petition to suspend its integration program.” Or that on September 6, 1983, “The City of Richmond solicited bids for installing plumbing fixtures at the city jail,” “The J.A. Croson Company’s bid was denied because it did not meet the “set-aside requirement” for minority contractors”, and “The Supreme Court declared this decision unconstitutional in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989).”

      But it turns out that Justice George Sutherland *didn’t* actually take the oath on September 5, 1922, that he was nominated and confirmed on that day, and didn’t begin his tenure as justice until October 2 of that year. So I guess Blackman is fake news after all, pushing some nefarious ideological agenda with his historical vignettes, trying to mislead us into thinking that George Sutherland was on the Court nearly a month before he actually was.

  13. So the MSM is at fault for trusting a local news source?

    Eugene’s descent to the dark side continues.

    1. Why, yes, they are.

      The previous journalism standard was if your mother told you she loves you, get a second source to verify it. Now, it is “If it matches my preconceptions that is good enough for me.”

    2. So the MSM is at fault for trusting [any] source [without attempting the least shred of independent verification]?

      Well, yes. That is, last time I checked, what so-called journalists are there for — as opposed to, for example, just providing megaphones through which they mindlessly bray whatever hits their ears.

      The fact you ask the question at all is highly disturbing.

    3. Bernard,
      Why try to justify what was at best shoddy, irresponsible journalism and at worst a exercise in blatant propaganda?
      It is the reason that I have given up on the US MSM in favor of the Japanese news reports

        1. That is a Japanese networies. It is available all day long in CA. It is all that we watch. Frequent news with no US political bias. Excellent documentaries and programs about Japan.

          1. That’s the key thing, no US political bias; Foreign sources may sometimes miss nuance, but they’re often more accurate simply by virtue of not having a dog in the fight they’re covering.

            1. They have different bias, which is not the same thing as no bias.

            2. James,
              They have no US political bias. Unless you are a regular view of NHK, you’re just making up a reply to Brett based on nothing.

              1. Turns out one of the secondary digital channels here is NHK.
                This isn’t a cat-in-the-box, and my watching the channel doesn’t change what’s on it. The waveform is already collapsed.
                Having a different bias is not the same thing as having no bias. Hint: ONE (but only one) of these things is possible for human beings to do. The other is the one you’re trying to hang a hat on.

      1. But, Don Nico, for a person of your discernment, only after they have been translated back into Hentaigana, I presume.

        1. All broadcasts are in English or are with English subtitles.

        2. By the way SL, if you can only read hiragana, you can only read half of the sign

        3. That would be the font where all the pen strokes are tentacles?

          1. Sounds like a question you’d be answering, not asking.

      2. Why?

        OK, Don. It was careless work. I’ll tell you why I reacted.

        First, the headline is false. There is no indication this was a hoax. Before Soave, or Eugene, goes around claiming there was a deliberate attempt to mislead they should have some evidence for it. Shoddy reporting – OK. Too ready acceptance of the story – OK. Hoax? No evidence.

        Second, the selective criticism. The right wing media is absolutely full of COVID misinformation. It spews the stuff like a firehose, and not just from “far-right fringes” as Soave would have it, but from mainstream Republicans. Yet this incident is highlighted.

        Finally, the distraction. Lots of ICU’s are full because of COVID, and if it’s not because of idiots taking Ivermectin it’s because of idiots not getting vaccinated. The gunshot victim, or heat attack patient, doesn’t give a shit. But hey, let’s not focus on that.

        So yeah. Shoddy journalism. But partisan BS as well.

        1. Thanks, Bernard.
          First, maybe it was not a deliberate hoax per se. Maybe it was just careless uninformed talked quoted as a news story.
          Second, while I agree that right wing sources are full of COVID misinformation. The official government sources, local and Federal, have been full of half-truths and misleading information. The lack of transparency by those charged by law with providing such, is shameful.
          As to you final point, I don’t know how many ICUs are actually full, but I do know that 75% of COVID hospitalizations are unvaccinated persons who had never before had COVID.
          So, I’d grant you partisan overreach and very shoddy journalissm

        2. “So yeah. Shoddy journalism. But partisan BS as well.”

          What partisan? Some people choose to view literally everything through a partisan lens “how does this (whatever the current “this” is) advance the goals of my chosen party” But there isn’t any partisan gain from convincing people not in Oklahoma that OK hospitals aren’t taking patients because of self-medicating idiots. Unless, of course, you concede that one of the parties actually wants Americans to be sick. If, instead, you start by assuming that both parties actually wants the pandemic to go away (you don’t have to assume that they want it to go away for the same reason(s)… Perhaps one party wants the pandemic to be over so that factory workers can go back to the firearms factories and resume making more and better firearms for non-criminals to buy and keep and bear, while the other party wants people to not be sick so they can go back to working in that minimum-$15-wage job making Mcburgers to hand through a little window in the side of a building. And then there’s the independents, who just really want the pandemic to be over so that chip foundries can ramp up enough production so that everybody who wants a Playstation-5 can get one at regular price.

    4. “So the MSM is at fault for trusting a local news source?”

      Trust, but verify.

    5. You are defending this lie?
      Has there been a single overdose ever reported? When the left went nuts on this, I ignored both sides of the story. Wait and see.
      If I was paid to report facts, I would have read the Rolling Stone Story and looked for a named source. Lacking the named source I would have continue to ignore. With a name sourced, I would have called the largest Hospital in the area and got a quote from somebody I could name in MY REPORTING.
      My by line, my reporting, with proper accreditation.
      Any thing less is intentional lying. I do not accept the meaningless excuse you offer.

      1. The OK poison control line reports that they got 12 calls for ivermectin last month. In all of OK.

        So, yeah, a very few.

        1. A call to the phone line is a far cry from an overdose. You generally call the phone line to find out if you have something to worry about. If you have a medical emergency you call 911 or go to the ER.

          So the actual number of overdoses sits at zero, thus far.

          1. I looked it up, the gap between the therapeutic and toxic doses for ivermectin is actually bigger than for aspirin. Though, yeah, if you took enough for a Percheron you’d be in trouble.

          2. “the actual number of overdoses sits at zero, thus far.”

            The actual number of KNOWN overdoses is at zero. Who knows how many people have fried their livers and just don’t know it yet?

    6. Yes they are. No source is trustworthy without verification. If Christ himself came down from on high and made a proclamation I’d still want two corroborating witnesses and eyewitness testimony.

      1. Heh. That sounds about right. MT from H5, here. Folks there were a bit concerned, but are glad to know you’re still active.

        Cheers.

      2. Using a fairy tale to try to make a point about credibility?

        No wonder clingers are uncompetitive in the American culture war, and laughed at on our strong campuses.

    7. bernard11, what is the purpose of the MSM?

      Is their purpose to redistribute chosen press releases from activists they like, and local news stories they like, without doing any sort of fact checking?

      Why then, they’re not at fault at all.

      Or, is it their job to report the news? Which means: validate what they report before they report it?

      In which case, they completely and utterly failed at their job.

      If it’s the former, that would be a strong indication that there’s absolutely no purpose in reading / watching / listening to anything they put out, other than because you’re desperately looking for validation of your pre-determined beliefs.

      No?

    8. Right Bernard. Why should the MSM be responsible for the accuracy of anything they publish?

      And then the followup – given that they apparently aren’t, why should I attribute any accuracy to anything they publish?

      1. ” why should I attribute any accuracy to anything they publish?”

        Especially when your current plan of attributing INaccuracy is working so darn well! Why isn’t the newly-reinstated President Trump doing any of those “I can’t hear you” news conferences in front of a helicopter at the White House?

        1. I’m not a Trumpster, you hopelessly partisan zealot. Note that you couldn’t give a rational answer to my simple question. Had to resort to political insult, which is meaningless to me.

          1. “I’m not a Trumpster”

            Who gives a fuck? He’s not President any more.

            “Had to resort to political insult, which is meaningless to me.”

            That whooshing sound was the point that missed you. It cleverly dodged your understanding by traveling in a super sneaky straight-line path.

            ” Note that you couldn’t give a rational answer to my simple question.”

            Or, conversely, note that you didn’t like the answer you got.

  14. Couple this story with the story of the Reddit group accused of misinformation because they were skeptical about government claims re mask and vaccinations.

    Misinformation, fake news, racist have all become weaponized phrases to beat down opponents, regardless of objective truth.

    It’s hard to see where this war on truth and facts will lead to.

    1. It’s hard to see where this war on truth and facts will lead to.

      Hard to see, or just so disturbing you prefer not to envision it?

    2. “It’s hard to see where this war on truth and facts will lead to.”

      Reality will win. gravity doesn’t care how much you believe you can fly.

      1. It’s really funny when you try to be witty.

        Try a lot harder next time.

        1. Sorry. Let me try to reach you at your level:

          Duh! Duh? Duh…

  15. It doesn’t matter if you think you are on the ‘evidence based’ or ‘science’ side (which the msm isn’t but thats besides the point). Its just bad practice for outlets that purport to be about objective news to cheerlead for a particular side like they’ve increasingly been doing and it inherently leads to embarrassing mishaps like these. But maybe they don’t have any shame so its a wash.

    1. Watching the CNN interview with John Bergman and Harvey Risch was enough to conclude the science surrounding COVID is fully and completely politicized. But it’s not just the media, it’s “scientists,” too.

      1. A natural consequence of so much of the science being paid for by politicians these days.

  16. “It was a story that appeared to confirm many of the mainstream media’s biases about the recklessness of the rubes.”

    Which plays to my biases: That all of us, in evaluating the views of our political opponents, must guard against adopting explanations that (1) confirm our biases and (2) make us feel good about ourselves. Facebook is replete with such horsepuckey.

    1. “It was a story that appeared to confirm many of the mainstream media’s biases about the recklessness of the rubes.”

      Here’s where I start to get confused.
      1 Rubes are reckless, b/c they are using horse de-wormer to ineptly treat/prevent covid. [Fake story]
      2. Rubes are reckless, b/c they refuse to mask indoors, ignore other safety procedures, refuse to get safe and plentiful (and free!!!) vaccinations. [True story]

      So how is the media running with Story One part of any big conspiracy to make the rubes look like morons? I mean, if the fake story and the true story accomplishes the same task, and tells the same moral, then only the most paranoid listeners/readers need to fall back on “It’s a cover-up, I tells ya!” as an explanation. Maybe just an example of poor reporting.

      I do agree that this sloppy reporting is understandable (but not excused!!!) when Wrong Story does fit neatly into a narrative. It’s why I’d be much more likely to believe a story that accuses Bill Clinton or Donald Trump of another infidelity, and much less likely to believe the same accusation against Barbara Bush or Michelle Obama.

      1. It’s less a conspiracy to make certain people seem like morons, and more a way to make sure the “right” people will publicly shout that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

        1. Try to keep up. The forever war is over, and all our troops are back from Eastasia.

      2. 2. Rubes are reckless, b/c they refuse to mask indoors, ignore other safety procedures, refuse to get safe and plentiful (and free!!!) vaccinations. [True story]
        Go check with the University of Tennessee.
        Their cases are higher than last year at the same week of school.
        95% of the staff, profs, teachers and administration is vaccinated.
        We have yet to determine who the rubes are.

        1. Because so many people chose to go unvaccinated, we now have a mutated variant of the virus that can infect even the vaccinated. Thanks, guys.

          1. Bzzt, thank you for playing, we’ve got a lovely parting gift for you.

            But that proves not to be the case

            1: All the Covid vaccines that I know of are “leaky”, which is to say they all allow for people who’ve been vaccinated to still carry the virus (which means: get infected themselves), and to infect other people.

            2: The most likely place to create a drug / vaccine resistant disease is in someone whose treatment is incomplete, not that effective

            Did you get a course of antibiotics, and only take 1/2 of it? Then you made it more likely that the disease will produce a mutant that’s resistant to that antibiotic.

            Did you get a vaccine that still allows the virus to replicate in you for a while? Then that vaccine creates the ideal environment, in you, the vaccinated person, for creating variants of the virus that overcome the vaccine’s protection.

            Who’s spreading covid?
            The vaccinated people who are asymptomatic, and therefore have no reason to take extra precautions because they dont’ know they’re sick

            Who’s breaking vaccine-resistant strains of covid?
            The vaccinated people. Since it’s only in them that vaccine resistance has a competitive advantage

            What to look for someone to blame?

            Look in the mirror

            1. Greg,
              There are breakthroughs in the previously infected. If you are going to go on about viral evolution, get the facts straight. You’re way off base.

              1. Yes, there are breakthroughs in the previously infected. And those will be more likely to “produce” a viral variant that is good against whatever immune response that previously infected person developed.

                Which could be to any immunoloigcally “reactive” part of the virus”

                In a vaccinated person (like me), there’s only one thing the immune system targets. It’s pretty much the same in every vaccinated person, because we’ve all been exposed to only one viral protein, and, as there aren’t supposed to be any variations in the protein from shot to shot, we’ve all been exposed to the exact same protein (no minor AA variations between cases for us).

                If you wanted to breed a vaccine resistant version of the virus, that’s how you go about doing it. Create a large population of people who can carry the virus, and transmit it to others, while showing no signs of it themselves.

                And we can thank the Brits, among others, who focused on getting people their first jab, and had ~4 month delay before getting the second jab, thus creating a large pool of people even more likely to breed a vaccine resistant strain in themselves.

                Am I accusing any of the vaccine makers of conspiracy, or bad faith here?

                No

                To the best of my ability to determine, they’ve done the best the can with the hand they’re dealt.

                But I have a great deal of disgust and contempt for the religious zealots pushing “everyone must get the jab, you’re killing grandma if you don’t / you’re creating the variants if you don’t” BS

                The thing Covid has most been marked by is the large amount of confident claims from the “experts”, that turned out to be total garbage. It’s time for the “experts” and their suck ups to take a hearty dose of STFU, and stay that way until they have knowledge to impact, instead of guesses

                1. ” It’s time for the ‘experts’ and their suck ups to take a hearty dose of STFU, and stay that way until they have knowledge to impact, instead of guesses”

                  Thank you for sharing this opinion, your most expert of expertness.

                2. “there’s only one thing the immune system targets.”
                  Pretty much that is the receptor binding domain of the original wild Wuhan variant that targets the ACE2 receptor.
                  Your faulting the British is pretty far off base. I have not seen any studies that link the delta (B1.167) variant to evolution from B.1.117 variant. Similarly no links with the Lambda S and Mu variants of interest.
                  Nature reported a single patient with 13 variants. Also, patients who develop long COVID are more likely to be breeding grounds for new variants.

                  I sympathize with your disgust at the zealots who want to divide the population into sheep and lepers.

            2. Yep, what you say Greg. The vaccinated, who ARE NOT actually protected from the disease, since the vaccination’s protection wanes rapidly, and is only effective against the spike part of the virus, are the ones responsible for the variants. Which is exactly as foretold before the first shot was ever given.

              If you’re unvaccinated and get any variant of the dreaded covid- during your infectious phase, a limited window, you are spreading the variant that hit you. If you’re vaccinated, whatever variant that hits you sees the antibodies leftover from the vaccine- but there aren’t enough of them. Because they were force generated from the vaccine which did nothing more than cause your body to generate a known pathogen- the spike protein, that’s the only thing those antibodies know. Even if you have a fresh booster- it does you little to no good against any variant with a different spike protein surface. And the variant infects you and finds better ways around the existing antibody, and you’re infectious longer, so you can spread whatever variant you create.

              1. “it does you little to no good against any variant with a different spike protein surface.”
                That is a gross exaggeration. All the variants of concern have a RBD that targets the ACE2 receptor. The variants have been evolving immune evasion structures in the spike protein so as to mask the their RBD somewhat from the antibodies.
                The result is to reduce the effectiveness against infect by B1.167 to about 60% of the resistance to the original wild strain. And to reduce the effectiveness again serious illness to 80% to 85%, That is hardly “little to no good.”

              2. ” The vaccinated, who ARE NOT actually protected from the disease”

                Uh, no. The vaccinated ARE protected from the disease, but are not (and never have been) 100% protected. People who have had the original-brand COVID are also not 100% protected from the new variant strains

            3. “Bzzt, thank you for playing, we’ve got a lovely parting gift for you.”

              Is it a BRAND NEW VIRUS?

            4. “Did you get a course of antibiotics, and only take 1/2 of it? Then you made it more likely that the disease will produce a mutant that’s resistant to that antibiotic.”

              Viruses are highly resistant to antibiotics, because antibiotics are used to fight bacterial infections, not viral. Antibiotics have never been effective at countering viral disease.

            5. “What to look for someone to blame?

              Look in the mirror”

              Get out of my mirror. I can see you.

          2. i guess thanks to that reasoning we’ll never see 2) be falsifiable…
            nice! (and convenient)

          3. The delta variant started spreading in India before vaccines were available anywhere. They didn’t choose to be unvaccinated.

            Do you ever fact-check what you type before you click “Submit”?

            1. “The delta variant started spreading in India before vaccines were available anywhere. They didn’t choose to be unvaccinated.”

              And the Mu variant started in Colombia. Both are common in the US because US residents who chose to be unvaccinated gave the virus new hosts to spread to.

              1. Your earlier complaint was that these variants can infect even the vaccinated. Now you imply they can’t. Make up your mind — if you are able.

                1. “Your earlier complaint was that these variants can infect even the vaccinated. Now you imply they can’t.”

                  My earlier complaint was that these variants can infect even the vaccinated. Now I imply that they still can. Improve your reading comprehension skills… if you can.

        2. “Go check with the University of Tennessee.”

          What’s your theory, here? Is it “The University of Tennessee is typical of Tennessee, which also has a high rate of vaxing”? Or the University of Tennessee is more more like the University of everywhere else, which means it’s high on people who value education and mostly vote not-with-you-and-your-ideology?

      3. “So how is the media running with Story One part of any big conspiracy to make the rubes look like morons?”

        Well, in your telling, they had a fake story, and a true story.

        But they, en mass, chose to push the fake story. Despite the fact that the story is such obvious garbage that anyone who cared about the truth would have passed on the story immediately.

        Now, why is it that you think that they all rushed to push an obvious garbage story?

        EV offers that it’s because they’re in a “conspiracy” to push a pre-determined narrative.

        What’s your explanation for the data?

        1. As I told others, the meetings take place each week after the meeting for the secret Jewish cabal. Just come to the meetings if you don’t feel represented!!

          1. Can I get my own space laser?

  17. I don’t understand the headline here. A local Oklahoma station fell for a specific doctor’s seemingly-false statements. And then other media outlets fell for the Oklahoma station’s reporting. What was the “viral hoax”? (Assuming that isn’t just a bad pun, I mean.)

    1. News orgs are not supposed to just take the local news’ word for it. They are supposed to do their own reporting and look in to it independently.

      1. Yes, that’s true. But what about that makes it a viral hoax, as opposed to just bad reporting?

        1. It’s sloppy reporting work, and a portion of the population is primed to recieve any incident of sloppy reporting work as indicative of non-sloppy reporting work that tells them facts they don’t want to believe in.

    2. It was a viral hoax because,

      1) It was a hoax.
      and
      2) It went viral.

      What’s complicated about that? The local station fell for the hoax, and it went viral. That makes it a viral hoax.

      1. No. The claim was that the media fell for a viral hoax. That means that it had to “go viral” before the media reported on it. But the media reported on it first.

        1. Wow, that’s some serious quibbling there.

          1. At least he’s right in that the media created a viral hoax because it checked off with their preferred fact-free narrative.

            1. It’s all a conspiracy, you see. Don’t fall for the fact-free narrative(s) that tell you otherwise…

        2. The bulk of the media fell for the hoax perpetrated by a local news station (or its reporter). This isn’t exactly rocket science.

          1. Speaking of things that aren’t as difficult as they seem, it turns out that rocket science isn’t that hard. Need it to go faster? Add more rockets. F=MA. Newton had the science worked out hundreds of years ago.

            The NY Times did eventually apologize to Robbert Goddard for belittling him for believing that rockets would work in outer space.
            http://astronauticsnow.com/history/goddard/index.html

          2. The bulk of the media fell for the hoax perpetrated by a local news station

            Nobody “fell” for anything, They did not get scammed. They had a vehicle to advance the narrative. To make one phone call, would ruin their agenda.

          3. Neither you, nor Brett, nor Soave, nor Eugene have presented any evidence that this was a hoax, a deliberate deception, rather than just a mistake or carelessness.

            1. You’re drawing an irrelevant and indefensible distinction. There is no honest way to go from the quotes and information cited to “ivermectin overdoses are filling up emergency rooms”. There is no honest way to repeat that story if one has basic familiarity with what is going on, either in an on-the-scene way, a fact checking way, or a general statistics way. The people who pushed the hoax either knew, or should have known, it was fiction. That’s what makes it a hoax.

              1. “You’re drawing an irrelevant and indefensible distinction.”

                You’re WAY too invested. It’s a screw-up. Maybe some learning will come from it, but probably not.

        3. “No. The claim was that the media fell for a viral hoax. That means that it had to “go viral” before the media reported on it. But the media reported on it first.”

          According to the quoted Soave article: “The story went viral, and was seized upon by the mainstream media.”

          I admit I haven’t studied the timeline in depth, and would be open to evidence that Soave’s quote is wrong if you have any.

          Unless your objection to the phrasing is that one media outlet fell for the story before it went viral.

        4. It did go viral before that, almost assuredly. A certain type of credulous moron hysterical about all things COVID shares these kinds of stories on social media with unmitigated glee.

          1. *before the mainstream media picked up on it, that is.

          2. “It did go viral before that, almost assuredly. A certain type of credulous moron hysterical about all things COVID shares these kinds of stories on social media with unmitigated glee.”

            If you’re done with that, what are you doing lately?

    3. No, the local station reported the doctor’s true statements that (1) taking ivermectin for Covid is a bad idea, and (2) Oklahoma emergency rooms are so crowded that they’re having trouble treating gunshot victims, but tried to make it look like he was saying that the people who were filling up the ER beds were people who had OD’d on ivermectin, not people who simply had Covid.

  18. Since this is a legal blog. 🙂

    If it were shown that the reporting was completely false, and the reporter knew it, is Rolling Stone liable in any way if a reader acted on their false reporting and suffered a material harm?

    Professor Volokh: L’shana tovah um’tuka.

    1. What harm could have been caused by believing that OK hospitals were/are filled with Ivermectin overdoses? Are manufacturers of Ivermectin going to sue because they can’t sell horse dewormers to suckers for improper uses? Are Oklahoma tourist industries going to sue because tourists are no longer flocking to Oklahoma? Who, in your hypothetical, has any harm that is related to the publication of the false story (-ies) about hospitals in OK being overwhelmed by Ivermectin ODs?

        1. Pointing out that no one suffered damages isn’t “fighting the hypo”

        2. “Don’t fight the hypo.”

          Write a better hypo.

  19. “That’s because the state is currently experiencing a seven-day-average of 1,528 hospitalizations due to COVID-19.”

    Apparently the rubes are still reckless, just in a different way than initially reported.

    1. Those poor whatabouts! Whatever shall we do? Please, won’t anyone what about the whatabouts?

  20. It was a story that appeared to confirm many of the mainstream media’s biases about the recklessness of the rubes.

    Whenever and wherever the category, “mainstream media,” becomes an announced focus of criticism, the recklessness of the rubes is likely on flagrant display.

    Not just for the rubes, but for everyone in America, news gathered by so-called mainstream media organizations remains the principal source of information about the public life of the nation. That news is in varying degrees accurate or inaccurate.

    Which it is depends not much at all on being, “mainstream,” but much more on the particular media organization, and not infrequently on the kind of happenstance which attends any kind of day-to-day activity by anyone. People doing the best they can get things wrong sometimes. Some people’s best is better than others’.

    In contrast to the so-called mainstream media, the online media, the alternative media, and especially the right-wing media (which is an identifiable category, and which self-identifies as not-mainstream-media) do a far worse job on accuracy, quite often on purpose, or at other times just predictably, because what gets delivered depends on unreliable online algorithms carefully tuned to subordinate accuracy to other considerations.

    Given the fact that news gathering contributions from mainstream media are the original sources of the vast majority of accurate information which shows up online—or in other kinds of media, albeit at second-hand—it is indeed reckless of the rubes to disparage habitually what amounts to the only good source of information they have. The practice of doing it encourages them in an unfortunate practice of ignoring the most critical question anyone can ask about information, which is, “How do I know that?”

    When EV encourages that habit of ignorance, it is reckless conduct by him, and unserious conduct too. He ought to be ashamed of his approach to this article.

    1. Tell me you bootlick for the media without telling me you bootlick for the media.

      1. “Not just for the rubes, but for everyone in America, news gathered by so-called mainstream media organizations remains the principal source of information about the public life of the nation”

        For many people it isn’t anymore. It’s about as accurate as Pravda was for some.

        1. I’ll admit I dont understand anyone who is angry at EV(not saying you are) Stuff like this does harm it is valid to go after it. We can tell ourselves it is good they corrected the story, but we say this despite knowing that the lie was seen more than the correction. To me this is why when it is exposed the media put forth no real effort to confirm the story it is all the more damning.

          I think about why they keep behaving this way and realize it is because there are generally no consequences anymore for this type of behavior. We will cancel celebrities for mean tweets from 10 years ago but we wont hold journalists accountable?

          I feel like if you’re a journalist and you fail to do even basic fact checking you should probably be fired. Or suspended without pay for a certain amount of time.

          1. It’s not about facts anymore. It’s about “shaping the narrative”. And if the facts don’t fit the narrative…they don’t need to be reported. And if the story does fit the narrative…it doesn’t need to be checked. And the shading gets worse, and worse

            It works to an extent…until it all falls apart. It starts with people who have a reason to disbelieve the stories looking into them more closely…and they lose trust. But those who want to believe the stories don’t check. And continue in the happy belief they are right. Until reality hits them in the face. Whether that be Trump winning in 2016 (It was impossible!) to Afghanistan falling apart overnight.

            The “narrative” shaded for so long, that it came down in a crumble.

        2. This. I used to think that, while outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times had a liberal bias, they at least respected journalistic objectivity as an aspirational goal. That attitude is so last century. The self-defined mission of the MSM is to shape minds in the correct direction. I take nothing they say at face value any more except maybe the weather forecast and sports scores, and I won’t be surprised if they soon find a way to slant even those.

          1. I used to have a hobby of writing to newspapers requesting corrections; It quickly disabused me of any such illusion.

            1. So your new hobby of whining about how the media is unresponsive to your concerns is more rewarding for you?

        3. “For many people it isn’t anymore. It’s about as accurate as Pravda was for some.”

          Whether you start by assuming it’s true or start by assuming it’s not true, you’re still getting the news from the same source(s).

          1. Many people get their updates about “news” from non-mainstream media.

            Precisely because of the long term reliability issues.

            1. Sure they do. And where did those non-mainstream media get it from?

        4. “‘“Not just for the rubes, but for everyone in America, news gathered by so-called mainstream media organizations remains the principal source of information about the public life of the nation’

          For many people it isn’t anymore. ”

          Some people prefer to be either misinformed or uninformed or both. This is not a recent development.

      2. “Tell me you bootlick for the media without telling me you bootlick for the media.”

        Tell me you’re a sheep while bleating that you are NOT A SHEEP!

      3. At least Rev. K’s ad-homs are amusing and done with effort. You are a lame poster with even less to say than him.

        1. To each their own. The Rev’s are too repetitive to be amusing and I’m not seeing much effort either – most seem to be bot generated…

          1. Come on, GPT 3 is not that good.

    2. If you think that CNN, just to pick one, is any more accurate these days than, say, Fox News then you’re living in the aughts. Both are appalling. And I believe that it’s intentional by both parties although obviously I can’t prove it. The narrative is more important than the actual story.

      1. Fox doesn’t even try to pretend that they’re reporting objective reality any more.

  21. KFOR, an Oklahoma news channel, reported last week that rural hospitals throughout the state were in danger of becoming overwhelmed by victims of a very specific poisoning: overdoses of ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug promoted by vaccine skeptics as a possible treatment for COVID-19.

    What follows will be speculation, but maybe speculation which could prove helpful to Robby Soave (Reason).

    I do not know the first thing about what is going on in Oklahoma. I do have an unfortunate store of first-hand experience with small rural hospitals. In many instances they are institutions capable of only the most rudimentary care, for patients numbering only in single digits. A single patient who shows up with symptoms they do not routinely treat can throw them off stride. Two or three such patients would put many of them, “in danger of becoming overwhelmed.” It may not be unreasonable to speculate that a smallish fraction of 459 cases of ivermectin overdoses, distributed among small rural hospitals across Oklahoma, in the midst of a Covid pandemic, did contribute to, “overwhelming,” some of them.

    I don’t know that happened. News gathering effort would be necessary to discover the truth. In the OP, I don’t see evidence that Robby Soave (Reason) actually used that effort. lt frustrates me that I cannot take what is reported here and answer the, “How do I know that?” question.

    1. Do you seriously think that journalism consists of blindly repeating things that “may not be unreasonable to speculate”?

      1. “Do you seriously think that journalism consists of blindly repeating things”

        A good deal of it does, in fact, consist of blindly repeating things. Political reporting, for example, largely consists of “Politician X said this today…”, and a good deal of crime reporting consists of attending press conferences held by either victims or police, and repeating what they said.

        This morning’s big story was about a little girl killed on an amusement park ride in Colorado. The coverage consisted of what the amusement-park operators had to say about it, and what the local authorities had to say about it (which was not much). They would have told us what the little girl’s family had to say, but apparently, they haven’t held a press conference yet. So the story was filled out with details about when the specific amusement-park opened and reviews of the park, which, really is just more repeating of what some people said about it.

        1. Anyone writing those articles should confirm that the quotes are accurate — not just take quotes from some other article and re-use them. Also, the most significant things being blindly repeated here were conclusions that went beyond quotes. That narrative is what was wrong, and what was blindly repeated.

          1. Michael P, you misconstrued what I wrote. I did not suggest that a journalistic account ought to be based on speculation. I did suggest that based on agreed-upon facts in the ivermectin story there was still room for reasonable speculation that assertions assumed debunked could in fact have a basis in truth—and that therefor more investigation might be reasonable.

            By the way, do you understand that every complaint you lodge here about journalism is yet better warranted as a critique of internet commentary? And that among the worst internet offenders are right wing sites which make it a practice vociferously to attack the so-called, “mainstream media,” which are almost always more accurate and reliable than their critics.

            1. What’s next saying that journalists are better than Magic 8-Balls for accuracy when they continue to break their own claimed practices and standards? What are the journalists and layers upon layers of fact checkers and editors getting paid for, if they need to be defended by comparison to random hobbyists and kooks?

              1. Michael P, it sounds to me like you recognize that so-called mainstream media are the best information sources you have, but you judge that they should be better, and more careful. If that is an accurate description of your views, then I agree. Putting aside what they should be doing, what do those premises tell us we should be doing?

                I suggest it tells us that we need to develop the critical thinking skills especially relevant to critiquing news stories, one-by-one, and also the different skills needed to critique news media institutions against each other. Plus which, we should get in the habit of evaluating the better-covered stories on the basis of multiple news outlets, not just one of them.

                And finally, that singling out as a class some of the better media available (the so-called mainstream media) for vituperation is worse than a waste of time. Doing that distracts the people who do it from developing those critical skills I mentioned.

                Some of those skills must start with the insight that getting news stories right—especially controversial news stories, and news stories which depend on reporting about self-interested news sources—requires talented people, energy, enforced standards, and considerable organizational backing. None of that necessary predicate comes free of baggage and entanglements, so the skill of reading news includes a willingness to take the baggage and entanglements as a given (stop railing against it), and rely on your own talent as a reader. Become a judge of information gathering, to sort out which are the parts you can trust with confidence, and which are the parts about which you must suspend judgment.

                I have said this again and again, and it is always worth repeating: the most important question you should be able to answer after reading a news story is, “How do I know that?” Or, to give it a slightly different inflection, “What did the story tell me about how the person reporting it discovered the things he wrote?”

                Ask those questions constantly, and two things will happen. First, you will very often find yourself in a state of suspended judgment, not content that the story is fully reliable, and waiting to see what might turn up later. Second, you will notice that some specific media sources create far more of that kind of uncertainty than others. You may wish to judge media sources accordingly, and there may be value in doing so, but even that kind of conclusion ought to be tentative.

                Finally, you may notice that I am urging particular judgments, arrived at with a minimum of generalizations. My emphasis is more on optimizing a continuing process of personal information gathering than it is on arriving at conclusions about media sources.

                Folks who find themselves railing about the failings of, “media,” of whatever kind, commit the sin of reification. Thinking that way too often hampers ability to get the most out of whatever specific information sources are actually available.

                1. No, the MSM are a terrible source of information. They lie by omission and commission every single day. But your best defense of them requires that you lump in random hobbyists and kooks with nothing but a blog, and also that you ignore their failures to do even the basic kind of fact checking that they claim is a core strength and discriminator for them as an industry.

                  1. “No, the MSM are a terrible source of information. ”

                    OK. And a better source is… (crickets)…

    2. What we do know is that,
      1) The doctor interviewed wasn’t working at that hospital anymore, and hadn’t been for months.
      2) The hospital, when actually contacted, pointed this out, and explained that they weren’t seeing any ivermectin overdoses.

      A quick online search, (Which these ‘journalists’ could have done!) has the OK poison control center saying they got all of 12 calls for ivermectin in the last month, state wide.

      So your speculation about what might be going on in Oklahoma *might* be true, but not at this hospital, and no particular evidence at this point that it’s true.

      That said, your general comment about rural hospitals is certainly true. I lived in rural Michigan at one time, and if you showed up at their ER with anything more complicated than a cut or fever, and weren’t dying on the spot, they kicked you out and told you to go to the city. (Happened to me twice!) Their ER was barely more than a triage center.

      1. “A quick online search, (Which these ‘journalists’ could have done!) has the OK poison control center saying they got all of 12 calls for ivermectin in the last month, state wide.”

        I notice you’re prepared to accept this information without any kind of corroboration.

        1. Quit horsing around!!

    3. It is an objective fact that one reasonable thing for the media to do would have been to make a simple phone call and fact check this. Just basic journalism.

      No, it isn’t okay for the media to speculate with stuff this serious. We aren’t talking about random people on twitter here. Their job is not to speculate.

      1. “No, it isn’t okay for the media to speculate with stuff this serious. ”

        Serious? Taking veterinary drugs rather than getting a vaccination is supposed to be serious?

    4. Pretty condescending comment about rural folks, Stephen.

      1. Don Nico, true. But I make condescending comments about urban folks too. Also respectful comments about rural folks, and about urban folks.

        If I were the umpire of the human ballgame, I could answer you by saying, “Sonny, they aint nothin’ until I say what they are.” But you and I both know I have not attained that exalted office, and can’t hope for it.

  22. The saddest part here is the people doubling down, saying it was “believable”. No, it wasn’t. If the claim was “some people are getting sick from horse medicine” fine. The claim was that so many are sick that all these gunshot victims are being denied beds for people who took horse paste.

    That was immediately suspect to anyone with a functioning brain. And then to see people almost disappointed it turned out to be false? Reminds me of the disappointment from certain Americans when Mueller failed to prove Trump was in cahoots with Putin(what kind of psychopath wants their president to be a traitor?)

    Now I dont blame the doctor here I blame the media for not doing any checking. A simple phone call could have prevented this. But because they hate a certain segment of America it was “too good to check”. Sad.

    1. “The saddest part here is the people doubling down, saying it was “believable”. No, it wasn’t. ”

      Re-do the math, this time assuming that nobody involved knows anything about Oklahoma that they didn’t learn from the Broadway musical.

  23. Has Prof. Volokh — or any other Conspirator — ever published a similar criticism with respect to the falsehoods this blog features regularly in the context of This Week In Supreme Court History?

    Carry on, clingers.

    #ConservativeCourage

    #AnkleNipping

    1. This is whataboutism. A sign of weakness.

  24. Rolling Stone issued a correction. That’s what’s noteworthy here.

    You don’t see this on right wing media. Like Trump, their policy is never to apologize, a tactic which unfortunately works very well.

    1. Oh please. The media’s tactic is to put out a false story, then put out a correction that isnt seen by as many as who saw the lie. Then they can count on sheep like you to pat them on the back for doing the bare minimum. And just like you did they bring up right wing media and well. Sad and predictable.

      1. Meh. The basic application of theory is that you repeat the lie as many times as possible, so that the lie becomes more familiar than the truth.
        The countermeasure is that you repeat the truth as often as possible.
        So, here it is: Ivermectin doesn’t prevent COVID. Vaccine does (except for the newer variants that aren’t prevented by vaccine for original-brand coronavirus.)

        1. While we are speaking truth I’ll drop some: these morons in the media dont deserve praise for doing basic journalism only after called out. And in fact anyone who praises them for it is stupid.

          1. Were you expecting opposition on the notion that the journalists who bought into this story without checking it did poor journalism?

    2. “You don’t see this on right wing media”

      Except when you do…

      https://www.huffpost.com/topic/fox-news-correction

    3. Capt. Whatabout has reported for duty.

  25. The report underlying this debate was the shoddy work of a reporter for an Oklahoma City television station. That reporter is three years out of the University of Central Oklahoma. Her father and uncle are anchors at that Oklahoma City television station. Her sister is an anchor for another Oklahoma City television station. Another uncle is an anchor for another Oklahoma City television station.

    Trying to turn this mix of red state rubery and nepotism into a legitimate criticism of ‘mainstream media’ is paltry work, and too much for this right-wing blog to accomplish.

    1. Nope. Mainstream media pushed the story without fact checking. Sorry kiddo that is the way it is.

    2. Got to give it to AK here for being consistent. It is usually “blame the rubes” for being perceived backwater rednecks. Now that the funny-to-liberals-stupid-rednecks-taking-vet-drugs-but-won’t-get-vaccine story went belly up, it is blame poor-reporting-by-rubes-in-backwater-location. Priceless.

    3. “Red state rubery” my ass. Are you going to bet real money that the reporter and her relatives are Trump voters. I wish there were a reliable way of verifying it, because if there were, I’d give odds that over half of the journalists in that family identified by the Rev. were Biden voters, even though they live in Oklahoma, just as I’d give odds that the majority of any randomly selected group of Oklahoma public school teachers are Biden voters.

      1. “I’d give odds that the majority of any randomly selected group of Oklahoma public school teachers are Biden voters.”

        What odds would you give that more than half the voters in, say, Georgia or Arizona were Biden voters? Or, egads, that way more than half the voters in the United States were Biden voters?

        1. Not nearly so good odds as I might have given nine months ago.

          1. If you mean he wouldn’t get those votes today, you may be right but it turns out he needs exactly 0 votes today to still be President.

  26. Remember when the media made up a bunch of stories about how Trump was a straight up Russian agent being moved around a chess board like a pawn by Putin? Yeah those were special times….

    1. Well, it was a believable story!

    2. “Remember when the media made up a bunch of stories about how Trump was a straight up Russian agent”

      No, actually, I don’t remember that. I do remember when they reported a story about how he directly asked Russian hackers for Hillary’s emails. I also remember a time when the media pretended that Mr. Trump had said “Of course I’d take the meeting” if a hypothetical Russian agent wanted to give him dirt on Hillary. They went to far as to find a guy who looked and sounded just like Trump and was willing to say something like that
      to make video clips of that.
      What they couldn’t find was anyone who looked like Putin saying “We would like to work with Donald Trump”

      1. If a lie is repeated often enough, James will be sure to regurgitate it.

        1. I’m still not buying that you have anything useful to say, so you can stop repeating the lie.

        2. “If a lie is repeated often enough, James will be sure to regurgitate it.”

          Somebody, not naming names, but you know who you are, Vin, doesn’t read well enough to notice that the comment he’s reacting to BEGINS with rejecting a frequently-repeated lie, and then continues with some things that actually happened. I don’t want to say this is typical, but it sure does seem to keep happening.

  27. In fairness to Rolling Stone, if they’d done a Google search, they would have found that according to KMRG radio in Tulsa: “Calls to poison control related to Ivermectin on the rise.”

    Of course, if they’d actually read beyond the headline to the article itself, they would have learned that Oklahoma poison control had only received 11 Ivermectin-related calls since May, and those mostly for “relatively minor symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and dizziness, though there’s the potential for more serious effects including low blood pressure and seizures with an overdose, as well as interactions with medications such as blood thinners,” according to Scott Schaeffer, managing director of the Oklahoma Center for Poison and Drug Information.

    https://www.krmg.com/news/local/calls-poison-control-related-ivermectin-rise/WGT5UODKG5ESNAMG2FK7Z2AC5U/

    But why let the facts get in the way of important, hard-hitting reporting?

    1. There’s lots of ways a skeptic could have picked up that the story wasn’t true, if, in fact, they were looking for such signs. For example, what, exactly, ARE the symptoms of an Ivermectin overdose and how does a hospital treat them? Turns out the most dangerous symptom of Ivermectin overdose is that you can catch COVID-19.

      1. “Turns out the most dangerous symptom of Ivermectin overdose is that you can catch COVID-19.”

        So, not very dangerous at all.

        1. It’s only dangerous if you have a functioning brain and want to keep it that way. So, no, not something you need to worry about.

  28. I’m an emergency physician. I have worked in emergency departments all my professional life.

    When I first read this story last week, my immediate reaction was disbelief. Especially the picture that purported to show people lining up outside for treatment, with the vague implication that some were gunshot victims waiting for treatment.

    Yeah no – that is not how emergency departments operate. When a patient comes in they are triaged, and I bet that a GSW would likely score higher than a person with an OD of Ivermectin and whatever the hell else is in horse paste….the ivermectin itself shows (in mice) lethality at 50mg/kg dosing….so a 150 lb person would have to consume 7.5 grams of the stuff? And if one hospital gets overwhelmed, patients are diverted or transported to other hospitals that can handle the patients.

    Total BS – and why pick rural Oklahoma, instead of (say) rural NYS, or Rural Maryland, or rural Pennsylvania?

    Finally, all the news outlets that published this crap are guilty of not checking their sources…at all. They could have called the hospital. This starts, I guess, with the station in Oklahoma….

    1. “When a patient comes in they are triaged, and I bet that a GSW would likely score higher than a person with an OD of Ivermectin”

      If the hypothetical Ivermectin guy is already being treated when the GSW guy shows up, the GSW guy gets triaged to the front of the line, and gets the next team that comes available. But nobody gets pushed out the back door of the hospital to make room for GSW guy.

      “if one hospital gets overwhelmed, patients are diverted or transported to other hospitals that can handle the patients.”

      Assuming, of course, that there is such an other hospital.

      “why pick rural Oklahoma, instead of (say) rural NYS, or Rural Maryland, or rural Pennsylvania?”

      Well, since the origination of this “story” was a news station in Oklahoma, I’d guess the answer to your question is “because we’re not in (say) rural NYS or rural Maryland, or rural Pennsylvania.”

      “all the news outlets that published this crap are guilty of not checking their sources…at all.”

      More correctly, they didn’t second-source anything.

    2. “the ivermectin itself shows (in mice) lethality at 50mg/kg dosing”

      2mg/kg for humans, though. You should be aware that this follows a 2/3 power rule, generally, though there are considerable exceptions. (The human liver is pretty impressive compared to most species, which is why we can eat things like chocolate.))

      If you took enough for a Percheron you’d be in a bad way. Still, that gives ivermectin a bigger window between the therapeutic dose and the toxic than aspirin.

      1. From the monograph:

        There are reports of accidental overdosage of ivermectin, but no fatalities have been attributable to ivermectin overdosing. In accidental intoxication with or significant exposure to unknown quantities of veterinary formulations of ivermectin in humans, either by ingestion, inhalation, injection, or exposure to body surfaces, the following adverse effects have been reported most frequently: rash, contact dermatitis, edema, headache, dizziness, asthenia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Other adverse effects that have been reported include: seizure, ataxia, dyspnea, abdominal pain, paresthesia, and urticaria. In case of accidental poisoning, supportive therapy, if indicated, should include parenteral fluids and electrolytes, respiratory support (oxygen and mechanical ventilation if necessary) and pressor agents if clinically significant hypotension is present. Induction of emesis and/or gastric lavage as soon as possible, followed by purgatives and other routine antipoison measures may be indicated if needed to prevent absorption of ingested material. In a study in which healthy volunteers were orally administered up to 2000 mcg/kg ivermectin in a fasted state or up to 600 mcg/kg ivermectin following a high-fat (48.6 g of fat) meal, there were no indications of central nervous system toxicity observed at any dose irrespective of food intake.

      2. It’s actually a little bit more complicated.

        1. “Lethality” is typically reported as an LD50 (or dose at which 50% of the subjects die).
        1a. But it’s extremely rare to obtain actual LD50 values on people. The regulatory authorities frown on running trials like that…
        1b. In addition, an LD50 is probably too high. Even if “just” 10% of the subjects died, it would be an issue.
        1c. Even “just” toxic side effects like Coma are typically frowned upon.

        2. As you note, species variability is a crazy thing. The LD50 in dogs is 80 mg/kg. Unless they have an MDR-1 gene defect. Then it’s 0.2 mg/kg

        3. In sheep and cattle, dosing is closer to 2 mg/kg.

        https://parasitipedia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2344

        1. Yes, I sort of assumed the listed LD50 for humans wasn’t experimentally determined…

          But as a general matter, if you extrapolate dose from mice to humans, you can’t use the same mg/kg dose rate. Mice have crazy fast metabolisms compared to humans, they clear drugs hugely faster than we do. The usual rule of thumb is a 2/3 power rule, because drug dosage approximately scales with surface area, not weight. (The surface area is roughly proportional to how much heat you can eject, and so metabolism.) And, golly! That works out to 2mg/kg for an average adult human, so that’s probably where they got that number.

          1. You can.

            What you’re doing is called allometry, and it’s an initial calculation for things like this. Experimental evidence follows the initial judged rates, including a “substantial” safety margin.

            The actual ratio is either 2/3rds or 3/4ths, depending on your considerations (and philosophy). For fun, here’s an allometry calculator, which gives a good initial calculation for things like this.

            http://clymer.altervista.org/minor/allometry.html

            1. I was familiar with it after going through chemo, though I wasn’t acquainted with the name.

              1. I’m rather more familiar with it, having had to do it in real life.

                1. Had to do what, conduct experiments that killed half the subjects?

  29. Shouldn’t the headline have said they fell for an ANTI-viral hoax?

    1. No
      What the media did is find a source that validated their prejudice. Nothing ‘reporty’ took place.

      1. What they did is put out a message that they believed would find an audience. That’s what media outlets DO. They were right about this assumption. They were insufficiently careful about labeling the story as fantasy rather than as fact.

  30. Just sitting here thinking; if Trump is really the bad guy so many commenters keep saying he is – Why does the MSM seem to be obsessively devoted to proving he is right about them?

    I was going to say I was sitting here scratching my head thinking, but chose to avoid the many obvious ivermectin jokes sure to follow.

    1. Because you are an idiot desperately clinging to anything that resembles the narrative you desire, just like the media you complain about. Except they aren’t actually a monolithic entity.

  31. “Just sitting here thinking; if Trump is really the bad guy so many commenters keep saying he is – Why does the MSM seem to be obsessively devoted to proving he is right about them?”

    You seem confused.

  32. Huh. CNN is falsely claiming that Joe Rogan is using a livestock drug to treat covid. He claims he is taking a human preparation furnished by the doctor. Whatever you think of ivermectin, a purportedly reputable news outlet pushing obvious propaganda doesn’t help people trust the establishment.

    1. Why should they care if people trust “the establishment”, hippie?

      1. Fair enough. I guess if they cared they wouldn’t publish so much bullshit.

    2. “He claims he is taking a human preparation furnished by the doctor.”

      And? Veterinarians are doctors…

  33. The chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, held a press conference this week announcing that the anti-parasite medicine Ivermectin seems to be effective at stopping COVID-19 and publicly recommending that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using Ivermectin to treat COVID.

    Ivermectin has been a source of controversy amongst medical professionals regarding the possibility of therapeutic treatments for those diagnosed with COVID-19.

    In an article about the suppression of Ivermectin by health authorities, Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote: “While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments.”

    Multiple reports and studies have shown evidence that Ivermectin is effective in combatting illness associated with COVID-19, and in some countries, like India, it is recommended for use even though the World Health Organization does not recommend it.

    https://dreddymd.com/2021/08/29/japanese-medical-association-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid/

    1. Apparently some doctors prescribe it. I wonder what “a trust the science/defer to the experts” type is supposed to do if they go to their doctor with covid and the doctor prescribes Ivermectin.

      1. Some Ohio judges do, too, if they can’t get the doctor to do it.

        1. Weird. My news sources say that the guy in Ohio was given a prescription by his doctor. Where you you get your information?

          1. If he was given a prescription by his doctor, why would they need a court to order the doctor to actually give it to him?

            1. I suppose you could google and find out.

              1. Or, I could point out (again) that the person who makes the claim is responsible for finding the evidence that supports their claim. Trying to pass it off as homework is poor form.

    2. Perhaps someone should explain to you the difference between organizing a medical-research study and rushing out to grab onto a drug that has not been shown to be effective at treating a specific disease in human beings.

Please to post comments